Reclaiming the negative: when to confront, when to reframe, and how to shift public understanding

When faced with harmful speech, for instance, slurs or dehumanising language, our instinct is often to respond directly, to call out false accusations and set the record straight.  Sometimes this works; other times, it backfires.  Research shows our brains are wired to remember what we hear repeatedly, and by correcting misinformation, we risk reinforcing it. 

So how do you know when to confront, when to reframe, and what methods best shift public understanding? Here are some tactics for you to explore. 

Use one of these tactics when there is an established narrative that needs to be reframed because:

• Harmful or stigmatising language is already deeply embedded in public discourse.

• Your audience regularly encounters this language, and it strongly influences their beliefs.

• Attempts to deny harmful language have failed to change perceptions.

Confront and Redirect

Confronting slurs directly is about showing how it feels to hear or receive a slur, to help those not directly impacted understand on a human level the effect of the stigma it carries. Acknowledging the harm of a specific message can move people to act, but this works best when the impact is acknowledged clearly, then flipped into something empowering and positive to counter the negative narrative. 

Reclaim language 

Reclaiming language is a way for marginalised communities to resist stigma and rewrite the narrative on their own terms. Words like queer, dyke, and faggot were once used to dehumanise. But over time, activists and communities have transformed them into expressions of pride, solidarity, and identity. This process can help dismantle shame, empower individuals, and build community resilience.

However, not everyone in the community will feel comfortable with reclaimed language and its use. When used in a public or mixed setting, it can still cause harm or discomfort: power dynamics, personal experience, and context all shape how a word is received. If you choose to use reclaimed terms, be intentional. Know your audience, and don’t assume everyone will relate to or accept the language in the same way.

Inoculation

Inoculation is a messaging strategy that works like a psychological vaccine. It intentionally exposes people to harmful messages, together with the opportunity to discuss. Inoculation builds what researchers call active processing: people don’t just receive information, they engage with it, reflect on it, and internalise the counter-message. If people have an opportunity to reflect about counter-points of an argument, they are more likely to shift their perspective about it, or at least to be less affected by harmful messages when they might hear them again later. 

The poison parasite effect  

This tactic hijacks the visual or linguistic identity of the opposition and subverts it to weaken their message, so that when people see the opposition’s material, they are constantly reminded of yours. It’s bold, creative, and works best with visual media such as posters, infographics, and memes. Crucially, it avoids repeating harmful arguments directly, instead attaching countering messages to the opposition’s familiar packaging.

Reframe

At the end of the day, the most important thing to do might be steering the discussion away from the opponent’s language and moving it toward the values and ideas that build empathy and support. This is called REFRAMING.

Reframing takes patience and consistency. It’s less about direct argument and more about building a new way of seeing the issue. Instead of denying the harmful claim, replace it with a new, values-driven message, supported by relatable stories, images and examples that unite people. Repeat the new frame consistently so it becomes a familiar way people interact with an issue or struggle. 

For research-backed, values-led frames that bring people together around LGBTI rights, take a look at PIRC’s Framing Equality Toolkit.

In North Carolina, ad agency McKinney printed the text of the anti-transgender bathroom Law on toilet paper to capture attention and playfully reframe its transphobic message. 

The “We’ve Always Been Around” campaign in Türkiye reframed LGBTI visibility by challenging negative narratives that portray queer people as a threat to “family values”. The campaign used relatable symbols and wide-reach media, showing LGBTI people as inherently part of everyday family life and society, aiming to broaden support while avoiding polarising debates over family definitions.

In Pakistan, #ChangeTheClap challenged the “transgender clap” – often used to mock trans people in the country – and exposed the harm it causes to the trans community. The campaign also called on the public to replace it with a respectful clap, transforming a gesture of ridicule into one of solidarity and pride. 

The French Canadian organisation Fondation Emergence used a combination of social experiment and confronting the negative in this video campaign: the campaign prints out and sticks up real hate speech from the internet. It observes the reactions of bystanders and documents how police forces take these placards down within minutes. The campaign alerts to the absence of any moderation of hateful online content, where the same content is allowed to remain forever unchallenged.

GLEN’s campaign saw students symbolically taking down slurs and stereotypes often used against them, replacing them with empowering messages to put kindness in action, and end name-calling in every school. 

“This Coke is a Fanta, so what?” In Brazil, Coca-Cola reclaimed the homophobic phrase “This Coke is a Fanta” by selling Coke cans filled with Fanta, turning an insult into a symbol of pride.

In the UK, activist Osama Qashoo launched Gaza Cola to offer a genocide-free alternative to big brands profiting from and complicit in the ongoing violence in Palestine. Using branding that will be familiar to many, Gaza Cola offers a real taste of freedom. 

In Switzerland, grassroots campaigners from Operation Libero turned the Swiss People’s Party’s own xenophobic posters against them, recreating them in the same format, colours, and fonts – but flipping the script with human rights messages.

Be mindful of the opposition language

Increasingly, authoritarian and anti-rights movements are co-opting human rights terms like freedom, protection, and peace to justify exclusion, control, violence and surveillance. These words aren’t slurs, but their meaning is being distorted to fit harmful narratives. Make sure to explain what those values mean in practice so that your audience can grasp the difference. 

Focus on the people, not the issue

Make the conversation personal and relatable by showing the real people behind the issue. It’s easier to oppose abstract ideas than to dislike a person who is kind and relatable. In Spain, for example, spokeswomen for a marriage-equality campaign were briefed to start their responses to attacks with “As a loving and caring mother, I ….”

Find common ground 

Create empathy by focusing on shared struggles rather than differences. Agree on mutual values to steer the conversation away from divisive topics..

Be an advocate, not an opponent

Promote a positive vision for the future rather than just criticising. Listening carefully, avoiding jargon, and staying respectful makes you more credible and engaging, without conceding your core values.

Stay playful

Reclaiming language can work particularly well when it is paired with strong visuals and a playful edge that flips the original meaning on its head. 

Be considerate and use empathy 

Use emotion carefully to connect with people without overwhelming them. Facts are important but should be paired with emotive language. Aim for emotional dignity to maintain credibility and influence.

Want to go deeper?

Check out our Campaign Communication Course to learn about these tactics in more depth.